Structuralism (2)
De Saussure Q & A
Structuralist Anthropology:
Levi Strauss , Example 1, 安卓珍妮，“Should
Wizard Hit Mommy”
Structuralist Narratology:
V. Propp, Examples 1, 2, 3 & “Should Wizard
Hit Mommy”
A. J. Greimas Example 1 & “Should Wizard Hit
Mommy”
Readings for next week
Structuralism (2)
1. Structuralism--Basic Concepts
2. Structuralist Reading of Narratives
3. Semiotics and "The Myth Today"
4. From Structuralism to Poststructuralism:
Binary Opposition & Deconstruction
Q & A (1): de Saussure,
Language and Reality
• What does it mean to say that language system is
arbitrary, conventional and differential?
• Does our language shape or reflect our perception
of the world?
– Does it make a difference to call your mother’s sister 姨
媽, aunt or Jenny?
– If we do not have the word, 緣, will we feel that
meeting someone is a matter of fortunate predestination?
– Is there any eternal or universal essence of “mother” or
“maternal love”? Can we define them without using
language (as a system of relations and difference)?
Q & A (2): de Saussure’s Major ideas?
1. The synchronic vs. the diachronic; langue vs.
parole
2. Language is a system of difference.
Meaning occurs in binary opposition between
two signs. (e.g. toy, boy)
3. sign = signifier and signified; the connection
between them is arbitrary.
Q & A (3): Form and Structure?
Form is inseparable from meaning;
(composed of all the literary elements in a text)
Structure is what makes meaning possible.
(e.g. [b] vs. [p]; subj+predicate; cooked vs. raw,
etc.)
Claude Levi-Strauss
1. Studies culture as a sign system; e.g. eating customs,
taboos related to menstruation, initiation rites,
kinship relations. (e.g. ring in Chinese society; 戒
指)
2. Kinship system: structures how things or people are
“exchanged” within a culture. e.g. women in
exchange for dowry.
3. We think in terms of binaries. (e.g. raw vs. cooked;
good vs. bad)
4. Myth: basic units – mythemes, e.g. in Oedipus myth:
overrelating and underrating of blood relations
Claude Levi-Strauss on
Oedipus the King
overrelating of blood relations: Oedipus
marries his mother; Antigone buries her brother,
despite prohibition;
native-born
underrating of blood relations: Oedipus kills
his father, Laios; escape being native-born
The heroic: Oedipus kills the Sphinx
The supernatural/pre-destined:
Oedipus=swollen foot; prophecy
Claude Levi-Strauss on
Myth
“Mythical thought always progresses from the
awareness of oppositions toward their
resolution.” (Structural Anthropology 224)
• His approach: not to find how men think in
myths, but ‘how myths think in men,
unbeknown to them’ (qtd. Hawkes 41)
• Myth always works simultaneously on two
axes. . .like an orchestral score “
Levi Strauss: examples (2)
“安卓珍妮”
The play (interaction) of genres and genders.
Biological history + romance  feminist utopia
Male lover, male authorities, masculinity; different
forms of sex wars + female lover, femininity
female androgyny
The binaries need definition and they change
positions.
Levi Strauss: examples (2)
“安卓珍妮”
binaries (ref. 梅﹚: 1. Beginning of Quest
生物誌
羅曼史
Present love
男性(權威or
ideal)
Past love
安卓珍妮
男人vs. 我
丈夫vs. 我
我 我&安文
老人家&我
(masculine
vs. feminine)
Levi Strauss: examples (2)
“安卓珍妮”
binaries
2. Conflict/Complication:
生物誌
羅曼史
男性(權威or ideal)
Present love
Past
安卓珍妮、洋紫荊 男人vs. 我 我與 丈夫vs. 我
(categorization) 男人
我
老人家、康教授
&我
傳真機、
安文& 我
Levi Strauss: examples (2)
“安卓珍妮”
binaries
3. Intensification  climax
生物誌
羅曼史
Present love
安卓珍妮
我與男人( 蟒蛇)
Sex battle、相機
(vs. evolution)
我
安文& 我
男性權威(權威or
love)
Past
丈夫vs. 我
老人家、康教授
&我
Levi Strauss: examples (2)
“安卓珍妮”
binaries
4. 2nd Quest; more struggle and battle
生物誌
安卓珍妮
羅曼史
Present love
我與男人
男性 (權威vs.
love) Past
我&安文
康教授&我
(debate on
evolution)
我
丈夫vs. 我、老
人家vs. 我
Levi Strauss: examples (2)
“安卓珍妮”
binaries
5. resolution (death, writing and waiting)
feminist utopia
生物誌
安卓珍妮
(symbolic/waiting)
安文
我 (writing,
waiting, suicide)
羅曼史
Present love
我 vs 男人
男性 (權威vs.
love)
丈夫
安文
Levi Strauss: examples (3) “Should
Wizard Hit Mommy”
preliminary understanding:
Setting: a nuclear family;
Characters: Jack, Jo and Clare
Story within the story: Roger, mother, owl, wizard
and Roger’s friends.
Two sets of relationship between Jack and Jo—
father/daughter, author/reader
Why is Jack caught in the middle? The middle of
what?
Levi Strauss: examples (3) “Should
Wizard Hit Mommy”
Jack and Jo—father/daughter, author/reader
Confirming kinship Denying kinship
Reading story at
Jo’s interruptions
nap times; wants Jo
to learn
helping his wife
The wife’s doing it
herself
defending his
mother
Wants the wizard to
beat Mommy
Structuralist narratology:
Vladimir Propp
syntax as the basic model: Subject + predicate =
Actor + function
Propp: 7 actors, or "spheres of action" (villain, hero,
false hero, donor[provider], helper, dispatcher,
princess [and her father]) and 31 functions.
* Actors are not characters; they are narrative
functions, or types of actions of the characters.
One character can be different “actors” at different
moments. (e.g. Cinderella & Snow White, The Long Enchantment.)
Propp: examples (1) Briar Rose
• A family in lack 
• Queen (bathing) + Toad (H) 
A princess
• King in pride (False Hero; only
twelve golden plates ) feast
• the 11 Wise Women bless
(donor) vs. the 13th curses
(villain),
• 12th Wise Woman “not death but
100-year sleep” (helper)
• 11 gifts fulfilled, 1 curse
shunned
Propp: examples (1) Briar Rose
• The King and Queen’s absence
(dispatcher) 
• the 15-year-old princess out
looking into the rooms 
• old tower and the spindle 
The spindle’s sound ‘merry’
but brings the curse on the
princess: she falls into sleep.
• Every being in the kingdom
sleeps too. (the princess + the
kingdom)
Propp: examples (1) Briar Rose
• Only thorny hedges grow, which
kill a lot of princes (false heroes) in
their attempts to rescue the
princess;
• 100 year pass, a king’s son comes
and hears about the story; he is not
afraid; he wants to “go and see
the beautiful Briar-rose."
• “When the King's son came
near to the thorn-hedge, it
was nothing but large and
beautiful flowers ”
Propp: examples (1) Briar Rose
•
•
•
1)
There she lay, so beautiful that he could
not turn his eyes away; and he stooped
down and gave her a kiss. But as soon as
he kissed her, Briar-rose opened her eyes
and awoke, and looked at him quite
sweetly.
Without the “helper” (the 12th Wise Woman), prince
cannot rescue Briar Rose.
Is the princess
Punished for her curiosity? 2) only waiting to be
rescued? 3) just confirmed for her beauty?
Propp: examples (1-2)
The Long Enchantment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How is this animation different from the traditional
tale?
It is the horse but not the princess that falls asleep;
villain? – wizard offers the pear for no reason;
Rescuer: not a prince, but the horse first and then Flora
“My spell would break if for your sake a friend would
dare to eat a pear.”
The fairy godmother cannot help. Promises that the
pony will survive and waken after 1000 years. But
then the wizard will still return.
The king—helpless; burning all the pear trees
only building a memorial
Example I:
“The Long Enchantment”
1. Structuralist
• Sender of message: Pony
Receiver: Flora
• Subject (Heroine) of a Quest: Flora
Object: Pony
• Helper: Flora & Pony
Themselves
• Opponent: Wizard?
Not a Fairy
Not a Prince
Example I:
“The Long Enchantment”
2. Sociological/Ecological:
•
–
•
Flora’s class background?
Why is the pear so important?
Who is the real villain?
3. Deconstruction:
–
The Wizard’s message. What does
the pear represent in this text? A
thing in nature? Delicious food?
Example 2: “Atlanta”
Mytheme: marriage of a princess From Greek myth –
• Undesirable – forsaken and raised during her
childhood by a bear.
• Love hunting; does not love men; oracle—her
marriage will end in disaster; wins a lot of contests;
• Her father wants her back  marry her
• With Aphrodite’s help, Melanion runs his race
with Atlanta carrying the apples with him and
wins over her. But he forgets to thank A.
• Zeus (the infuriated god) turns them both into
lions.
Example 2: “Atlanta”
Mytheme: marriage of a princess From Greek
myth –
the roles of the King and the Gods –not really
helpers; have their selfish desires and
prejudices.
Example 2: “Atlanta”
Modern version:
Neither of them wants to get married.
Propp: examples (3)
James Bond’s 007 films:
actor: female helpers (usu. appearing in double,
one from the enemy’s side and one as Bond’s
comrade);
1 major function: sex (with which usu. the films
begin and end).
楊紫瓊 in 明日帝國(TOMORROW
NEVER DIES))
– helper but not a lover; rescued
and becomes a lover at the end.
Propp: examples (4):
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ”
villain, hero, false hero, donor[provider],
helper, dispatcher, princess [and her
father]
The story
The father –provider,
hero/false hero,
Jo – Princess?
Mother –dispatcher?
The typical fairy tale in it
Who’s the hero? False hero?
Who is the dispatcher? Who
is the helper? Opponent?
* How are the roles in the two
stories related to each other?
Propp: examples (4):
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ”
The story
The typical fairy tale in it
The father –
provider, hero/false
hero,
Jo – Princess?
Mother –dispatcher?
The hero –Roger,
The dispatcher – owl
The helper –wizard
Opponent –”difficulties”
-- no princess; friends &
parents in the background
(status quo)
Propp: examples (4):
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ”
The story
The last fairy tale in it
The father –
The hero –Roger/also false hero,
provider, hero/false The dispatcher – owl
hero,
The helper (?) –wizard
Jo – Princess?
Opponent (?) –mother, friends
Mother –dispatcher? -- father in the background (status
Opponent?
quo)
Propp & Greimas (1)
Propp's seven 'spheres of action‘
Greimas’s three pairs of binary oppositions, including:
six roles (actants)
1. Subject/Object,
and three basic patterns:
1. Wanting (Desire, search, or
aim),
2. Sender/ Receiver
3. Helper/Opponent-
2. Exchange (communication)
3. Contradiction (Auxiliary
support or hindrance).
Propp & Greimas (2)
Propp's 31 functions  further abstracted into
Greimas’s 3 structures; for example:
Propp: “One member
of a family either
lacks something or
desires to have
something.”
Disequilibrium
contract broken,
disjunction or
Performative (out for a
task)
A. J. Greimas’s universal grammar
three pairs of actants: Helper/Opponent,
Sender/Receiver, Subject/Object
three basic patterns of action (or syntagm):
contractive (breaking/setting contract, alienation, reintegration ),
disjunctive (departure, arrival),
and performative (trial, task).
 deep semantic structure of human thinking and
narrative.
"the semiotic rectangle”
elementary structure of signification
a binary opposition & their negation
A
-A
Presupposi
(e.g.hetero- marriage)
tion
-B
(e.g. incest
taboo/homophobia)
contradiction
(Adultery)
B
Simple
negation
(e.g. incest/homosexuality)
"the semiotic rectangle”
elementary structure of signification
a binary opposition & their negationNeutralized by
divorce
A
-A
Presupposi
(e.g.hetero- marriage)
tion
-B
(e.g. incest
taboo/homophobia)
(Adultery)
B
Complicated by
Platonic love
(e.g. incest/homosexuality)
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ” with
Greimasian paradigm
• Story
• Typical S within the story:
• 1. Father (Sender) + Jo
(Receiver) 
• 2. Father (Performative)
(Contractual) + Jo (O) 
• 3. Father (S) + Jo asleep (O)
• 1. Roger (S) + ?
(Opponent/Sender) 
• 2. Roger (Disjunctivedepart)(Performative) +
Owl/Wizard (H) 
• 3. Roger (S) + ?(O)
• 4. Roger (S)(Disjunctivereturn)+ Mother/Home (O)
Father (Disjunctive-return)
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ” with
Greimasian paradigm (2)
• Story
• Last S within the story:
• 1. Father (Sender) + Jo (Receiver) 
• 2. Father (Performative) (Contractual)
+ getting Jo to sleep (Ob) 
• 3. Father author (S) + Jo reader
(Opponent)(Contractual) 
• 4. Father threatens (Performative)/+
Jo quiet
• (Ob) 5. Father going downstairs
(Disjunctive)(Contractual –with both
the past mother and the present wife)
• 1. Roger (S) + smell (Opponent) 
• 2. Roger (Disjunctivedepart)(Performative) + Owl/Wizard
(H) 
• 3. Roger (S) + Rose(O)
• 4. Roger (S)(Disjunctive-return)+
Mother (not Object, but Opponent)
• 5. Mother (S Helper) + old Roger (O)
 Wizard (Helper)  old Roger
(O)
• 6. Jo’s – Roger (S) + Mother
(Opponent)  Wizard (Opponent)
 new Roger (S)
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ” with
Greimasian paradigm (3)
•
Patriarchal
authority
(through
storytelling)
Presupposition
Story-engaging
Contradiction
Daughter’s
growth contradiction
(through having
her opinions
Simple
negation
story -- boring
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ” with
Greimasian paradigm (4)
•
Patriarchal
authority
(through
storytelling)
intensified by the
Daughter’sdaughter
Contradiction
growth
(through having
her opinions
Complicated by the
Mother & the Wife’s
Story-engaging
story -- boring
“Should Wizard Hit Mommy? ” with
Greimasian paradigm (5)
•
Stopped by threat
Patriarchal
authority
(through
storytelling)
Contradiction
Daughter’s
growth
(through having her
opinions)
Complicated by the
Mother & the Wife’s
Power and
Control
Wife’s work,
Mother’s control
Suggestions
• 1. Usually interesting analysis happens
when the characters break these categories
or confuse them.
2. You can set up your own categories.
3. This kind of structuralist analysis is more
useful on popular cultural products or
shorter texts than novels—though the latter
is not an impossible choice.
Issues for Discussion
• Do we always think in terms of binaries, or
two pairs of binaries?
• What else do we do after finding out the
patterns?
Reading for next week
1. Textbook -- chap 4 15-41
References
• Greimas: Major Ideas
http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/structuralism/Greimas_q
uotes.html
• Greimas: General Introduction
http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/structuralism/Greimas.ht
ml
• Semiotic Square:
http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/singing/essay/greimas.html